Re: How to use smart_change.pl ?

[sebul]

Please Refer
https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/blob/master/english/devel/website/using_git.wml

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 07:33 sebul  wrote:

> Hello.
>
> Please update Usage of smart_change.pl in
> https://www.debian.org/devel/website/working.en.html
> for Git NOT cvs
>
> --
> 세벌식 http://sebul.sarang.net 
>

Re: Bug#876075: Bug#879048: Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> > > single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> > > on the web site has caused various problems.  I'm not sure how to get
> > > to the multi-page version on www.debian.org, and indeed the anchors
> > > and table of contents in Policy are not working right now on the web
> > > site because of this problem.
> > >
> > > I feel like the single-page HTML version may have been a failed
> > > experiment, at least pending further work on Sphinx, and we should
> > > just publish the multi-page version.  What do other people think?
> > > (Adding debian-www for their opinion as well.)
> > >
> > > Not having working footnotes feels to me like kind of a showstopper.
> > 
> > It's been sixty days since I reported one of these bugs upstream and
> > there has been no response from upstream.  So I think it is time to undo
> > our failed experiment.
> > 
> > We have a choice between dropping policy-1.html altogether, or instead
> > switching the www.debian.org copy to use the multi-page version and not
> > modifying the debian-policy package.
> > 
> > We have three separate bugs (see Cc header) about the singlepage output:
> > the gap in quality between singlepage and multipage is rather wide.  So
> > I am favour of dropping policy-1.html altogether.  I just don't think
> > it's good enough to include in our package.  Further, now that
> > policy.txt.gz has proper section numbering again, it can replace a lot
> > of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.
> > 
> > Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
> > future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?
> 
> If you do that, then do not close the bugs related to policy-1.html
> because they will still be valid, and report a bug 'policy-1.html is
> missing'.

Maybe it sound harsher than what I wanted to say.
I have no problem with policy-1.html to be dropped as a stop-gap
measure. However this is not a good long term solution. If sphynx cannot
do it then we should consider a better technology. 

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Bug#900552: Bug #900552: Add privacy policy to the Debian website

[Laura Arjona Reina]

Hello all
I have read the document and I have some questions and comments.

1.- Once that we publish a "Privacy Policy" document in the website, if
there are changes to the text, do we need to do something "special"?
(e.g. put a banner in the site saying "we have updated our privacy
policy", or informing some mailing list...). I'd also like to know if we
need to "version" this document (in similar way as we do with the Debian
Constitution, for example: 1.0, 1.1, etc).

2.- We need to know if translations of the document need to clarify that
the translation is only informative and has no legal value and people
should look at the original English for that. We put such a note in the
translations of /trademark and /license, for example.

3.- About where it should go, my proposal is:

* Place the document under /legal/privacy.wml
* On top of the  /legal/index.wml document, create a new section "Legal
information" with links to /privacy, /trademark and /license (maybe more)
* In the menu of the homepage (and the menu at the footer of every
page), in the section "About Debian", place links to "Legal info" and
"Data privacy".

I will create a branch in the webwml repo named
"bug900552-privacypolicy", and upload the privacy.wml file there.

This way we can work there  (e.g. I would submit obvious fixes as 
->  etc) and the document will not be shown in the Debian website,
at least until my question 1 and/or 2 are clarified.

4.- About the content of the document, I have some comments but I prefer
to send diffs as patches in separate messages, so they can discussed or
merged individually.

Thanks!
-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

new entry in /intro/organization about Data Protection Team

[Laura Arjona Reina]

Hello Data Protection Team

Thanks for your availability to work on this topic for the Debian project.

The info about your team is live now in the Debian website. Please review:

https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en (the menu)
and
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization.en#data-protection (details)

and feel free to suggest fixes/improvements (or commit yourselves, to
the "organization.data" file in /english/intro folder).

Translations will be updated in the following days.

About the Privacy Policy document (bug #900552), I have created a branch
in the webwml repo, to work on it:

https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/commits/bug900552-privacypolicy

I have notified this to the bug report, too.

Kind regards,

-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

Bug#900552: (no subject)

[Matthew Vernon]

Hi,

Just to say that I've had a look at the proposed text, and it looks like 
a good starting point to me - it's clear and concise.


Regards,

Matthew

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Installation guide link possibly incorrect

[Holger Wansing]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018 schrieb Laura Arjona Reina:
> >
> I also had to remove the old html files showing the guide of buster.
> It's solved and everything should be shown correct in
> www.debian.org/releases/stretch
> 
> Please let me know if you find any issue.

Looks fine.
Many thanks, Laura

Holger

-- 
Sent from my Jolla phone
http://www.jolla.com/

[SOLVED] Re: Installation guide link possibly incorrect

[Laura Arjona Reina]

Hello again

El 09/06/18 a las 23:49, Laura Arjona Reina escribió:
> Hello again
>
> El 09/06/18 a las 18:29, Laura Arjona Reina escribió:
>
>>
>> ls -t1 /srv/www.debian.org/cron/ftpfiles/pool/installation-guide_*.dsc |
>> head -1
>>
>
> grr, this command tells me the last version of installation-guide, which
> is for buster, not stretch.
> Unfortunately I only noticed after finishing the build.
>
> I'm running the commands again with the last version available for
stretch:
>
> sudo -u debwww dpkg-source -sn -x
> /srv/www.debian.org/cron/ftpfiles/pool/installation-guide_20170614.dsc
>
> cd installation-guide-20170614/build && sudo -u debwww
> manual_release=stretch
> destination=/srv/www.debian.org/installmanual/stretch/ ./buildweb.sh >
> /srv/www.debian.org/installmanual/stretch.log 2>&1
>
> sudo -u debwww cp -a /srv/www.debian.org/installmanual/stretch/*
> /srv/www.debian.org/www/releases/stretch/
>
I also had to remove the old html files showing the guide of buster.
It's solved and everything should be shown correct in
www.debian.org/releases/stretch

Please let me know if you find any issue.

Thanks for your patience!

Kind regards,
-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

Re: Bug#879048: Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> > single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> > on the web site has caused various problems.  I'm not sure how to get
> > to the multi-page version on www.debian.org, and indeed the anchors
> > and table of contents in Policy are not working right now on the web
> > site because of this problem.
> >
> > I feel like the single-page HTML version may have been a failed
> > experiment, at least pending further work on Sphinx, and we should
> > just publish the multi-page version.  What do other people think?
> > (Adding debian-www for their opinion as well.)
> >
> > Not having working footnotes feels to me like kind of a showstopper.
> 
> It's been sixty days since I reported one of these bugs upstream and
> there has been no response from upstream.  So I think it is time to undo
> our failed experiment.
> 
> We have a choice between dropping policy-1.html altogether, or instead
> switching the www.debian.org copy to use the multi-page version and not
> modifying the debian-policy package.
> 
> We have three separate bugs (see Cc header) about the singlepage output:
> the gap in quality between singlepage and multipage is rather wide.  So
> I am favour of dropping policy-1.html altogether.  I just don't think
> it's good enough to include in our package.  Further, now that
> policy.txt.gz has proper section numbering again, it can replace a lot
> of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.
> 
> Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
> future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?

If you do that, then do not close the bugs related to policy-1.html
because they will still be valid, and report a bug 'policy-1.html is
missing'.

The policy-1.html has the nice property that it is easy to search the
whole document.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Re: Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

[Sean Whitton]

Hello all,

On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

> I'm not sure where we landed with this, but it feels like the
> single-HTML output from Sphnix is kind of broken, and publishing that
> on the web site has caused various problems.  I'm not sure how to get
> to the multi-page version on www.debian.org, and indeed the anchors
> and table of contents in Policy are not working right now on the web
> site because of this problem.
>
> I feel like the single-page HTML version may have been a failed
> experiment, at least pending further work on Sphinx, and we should
> just publish the multi-page version.  What do other people think?
> (Adding debian-www for their opinion as well.)
>
> Not having working footnotes feels to me like kind of a showstopper.

It's been sixty days since I reported one of these bugs upstream and
there has been no response from upstream.  So I think it is time to undo
our failed experiment.

We have a choice between dropping policy-1.html altogether, or instead
switching the www.debian.org copy to use the multi-page version and not
modifying the debian-policy package.

We have three separate bugs (see Cc header) about the singlepage output:
the gap in quality between singlepage and multipage is rather wide.  So
I am favour of dropping policy-1.html altogether.  I just don't think
it's good enough to include in our package.  Further, now that
policy.txt.gz has proper section numbering again, it can replace a lot
of the uses that there were for policy-1.html.

Any objections to dropping singlepage html output completely, until a
future date at which Sphinx upstream has improved it?

-- 
Sean Whitton